JUDGMENT : SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, J. 1. Heard Mr. M A Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 2. This is an application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking bail in respect of the accused/petitioner, namely, Suman Uddin, in connection with Special (NDPS) Case No. 37/2025, which is pending before the court of learned Court of Special Judge, Sribhumi arising out of Badarpur P.S. Case No. 76/2025, under Sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 17/04/2025, one S.I. Dibakor Gogoi, In-Charge of Malua PICP, lodged an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-Charge of Badarpur Police Station, alleging, inter alia, that credible information was received regarding the movement of two vehicles suspected to be involved in the transportation of a substantial quantity of narcotic contraband. The vehicles were (i) one Bolero PickUp bearing registration number AS-01MC-2851, and (ii) another Bolero Camper (Goods Carrier) without a number plate, both en route from Silchar to Sribhumi via Badarpur. It was further alleged that as per the input received, the first vehicle was carrying the illicit substances, while the second vehicle was trailing behind with the intention of taking over the alleged contraband at a later stage. Accordingly, an entry was made in the General Diary (GDE No. 32) of Badarpur Police Station dated 17/04/2025, and the Informant was directed to take necessary action. Acting on these instructions, the Informant, along with his team, set up a naka near Sethi Flour Mill and conducted checking operations. During the operation, they intercepted the two suspected vehicles at Kandigram, Jalalpur- (i) the Bolero Pick- Up bearing registration number AS-01MC-2851, and (ii) the Bolero Camper (Goods Carrier) without a number plate, which was following the former. Both vehicles were travelling from the Badarpur side toward Sribhumi and were each occupied solely by the driver. Due to non-availability of local witnesses, two independent witnesses were contacted telephonically and requested to be present at the spot, and they arrived accordingly. The driver of the vehicle bearing registration number AS-01MC-2851 identified himself as Yahiya Khan, S/O Md. Nurhim, a resident of Kwakta, Ward No. 8, P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur. The driver of the second vehicle identified himself as Suman Uddin, S/O Asad Uddin, a resident of Tilabari, P.S. Patharkandi, District Sribhumi, Assam. The driver of the vehicle bearing registration number AS-01MC-2851 identified himself as Yahiya Khan, S/O Md. Nurhim, a resident of Kwakta, Ward No. 8, P.S. Moirang, District Bishnupur, Manipur. The driver of the second vehicle identified himself as Suman Uddin, S/O Asad Uddin, a resident of Tilabari, P.S. Patharkandi, District Sribhumi, Assam. It was further alleged that the Bolero Pick-Up (AS-01MC-2851) was transporting suspected Yaba Tablets from Manipur, and the driver admitted that the contraband was concealed inside a secret chamber within the vehicle. He also admitted that he intended to hand over the suspected narcotics to the Bolero Camper that was following him. Subsequently, in the presence of the independent witnesses and the Superintendent of Police, Sribhumi, a search of the vehicle (AS-01MC- 2851) was conducted, and suspected Yaba Tablets were recovered from a secret chamber located in front of the radiator. The total weight of the suspected Yaba Tablets seized was 16,673 grams (16 Kg and 673 grams), which were seized by the police along with other articles. Accordingly, a case was registered as Badarpur P.S. Case No. 76/2025, under sections 22(c)/25/29 of the NDPS Act and the accused persons were arrested and on 18/04/2025, and forwarded to the Learned Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sribhumi. 4. Mr. M.A Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no recovery was made from the petitioner or his vehicle and he is in no way connected with the alleged offence. Furthermore, referring to the seizure list which is dated 17.04.2025, it is submitted that the seizure was made on the said date at 7:20 a.m, but the accused was shown arrested on the next date i.e. 18.04.2025 and was produced before the Magistrate on 18.04.2025. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was not produced before the Magistrate within 24 hours as he was detained on 17.04.2025 at 07:20 a.m. 5. I have perused the CD and as per the seizure list, the time of seizure is shown as 07:20 am on 17.04.2025. It also appears from the CD that the petitioner was apprehended at the same time and taken to Badarpur Police Station and he was thereafter shown arrested on 18.04.2025 at 08:35 a.m. Thereafter, as it transpires from the CD, the Police proceeded from the Police Station at 03:00 p.m to the Court of the CJM, Sribhumi, where he was produced at 03:40 pm. The aforesaid facts are not disputed by the prosecution. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Subhash Sharma , AIR OnLine 2025 SC 355 was observed as follows:- “……5. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that pursuant to the Look Out Circular (for short, 'the LOC') issued against the respondent, he was detained at IGI Airport from 11.00 hours, on 5th March, 2022. But he was shown as arrested at 01.15 hours on 6th March, 2022 by the appellant Enforcement Directorate and was produced before the Court of the learned Magistrate within 24 hours from 1.15 hours on 6th March, 2022. 6. This argument cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the LOC was issued at the instance of the appellant Directorate of Enforcement. By executing the LOC, the Bureau of Immigration detained the respondent at IGI Airport from 4th March 2022 on behalf of the Appellant. The finding of fact recorded in paragraph 10 is that undisputedly, the physical custody of the respondent was taken over by the appellant th from the Bureau of Immigration at 11.00 hours on 5 March, 2022. Thereafter, at 1.15 hours on 6th March 2022, an arrest memo was prepared by ED at Raipur. He was produced before the Court at 3 p.m. on 6th March, 2024. The perusal of the arrest order(Annexure p-1) shows that the typed order was kept ready. The date and time of arrest were kept blank which appear to have been filled in by hand. Admittedly, the respondent was not produced before the nearest learned Magistrate within 24 hours from 11.00 a.m. on 5th March, 2022. Therefore, the arrest of the respondent is rendered completely illegal as a result of the violation of clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the continuation of the respondent in custody without producing him before the nearest Magistrate within the stipulated time of 24 hours is completely illegal and it infringes fundamental rights under clause 2 of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, his arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody. Since there is a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, even his fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 has been violated.” 7. Therefore, his arrest gets vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody. Since there is a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, even his fundamental right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 has been violated.” 7. As already discussed herein above, from the contents of the CD, it is evident that the petitioner was in the effective custody of the Police since 07:20 a.m on 17.04.2025 and the period of 24 hours would expire at 07:20 a.m on 18.04.2025, and even allowing a period of 2 hours for transportation, which is on the higher side from Jalalpur Kandigram on NH-37 to the Court of the CJM at Sribhumi, the permissible period for production before the nearest Magistrate would expire at 09:20 a.m on 18.04.2025. However, admittedly, the petitioner was produced before the learned Addl. CJM at Sribhumi at 03:40 p.m on 18.04.2025. As held by the Apex Court in Directorate of Enforcement (supra), the arrest stood vitiated on completion of 24 hours in custody without being produced before the nearest Magistrate and that once a Court dealing with a bail application finds that the fundamental rights of the accused under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India have been violated, it is the duty of the Court dealing with the bail application to release the accused on bail. 8. The Court notices that a huge quantity of Yaba tablets was recovered in this case, but in view of the above violation of the constitutional rights of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail is allowed and the petitioner, namely, Suman Uddin shall be released on bail on executing a bond of Rs. 2 Lakhs with two local sureties, at least one of them being a Government Servant to the satisfaction of the concerned Court below in connection with the aforesaid case. It is further provided that the petitioner shall not try to influence or intimidate the witnesses or tamper with the evidence in any manner. 9. The application stands allowed accordingly.